Posted on 03/09/2013 8:04:06 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Now we are finally getting somewhere. Just like Obama is ineligible technically because his fathers British Nationality 'governed' his birth status in 1961, Ted Cruz is ineligible too. Fox News has confirmed it and rightly so. Sean Hannity made a huge blunder the other day and declared Ted Cruz a natural born citizen because he was born to a American mother in Canada. He was so wrong. Cruz is a 14th Amendment U.S. 'statutory' (not natural born) citizen which is something completely different than a Article 2 Section 1 Constitutional natural born Citizen which is explicitly designed only for the presidency by the framers.
Vattel was also mentioned specifically in some of the Constitutional Ratifying conventions in the various state legislatures. I’ll look up some references if you want.
I am fully able to provide VERIFIABLE AND HISTORICAL SOURCES for my assertions, which are as follows:
1. The Constitution says, "The Congress shall have Power... To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations...
2. The "law of nations" was a general topic of law, and there were a number of writers on the subject besides Vattel.
3. A different writer wrote a book in which he included a chapter entitled, "Of Offences Against the Law of Nations."
4. Vattel does not mention either "Piracies" or "Felonies" in his work on the law of nations. He does not use the word "Felon" at all, and mentions "Pirates" only once in his entire book.The other author that I refer to speaks of "felons" and "felonies" 5 times, and has a discussion of Piracy in which he uses the terms "Piracy," "pirate," "piratical," some 15 times.
5. The other writer was extremely well known, not only to a few people, but to all lawyers in early America, and he was quoted by the Founding Fathers SIXTEEN TIMES more often than they quoted Vattel.
6. I can show you where the notably thrifty Founders spent precious public funds to purchase that author's work for use in the Senate.
Now, if I can provide a verifiable and historical source for every single one of the above six points, wouldn't you agree that the author I refer to, rather than Vattel, was most likely the source of the phrase used in our Constitution? Why wouldn't you? It only makes sense.
Being ‘naturalized’ is not the same as being ‘natural born’.
One of the reasons this was a problem is that, until about 25 years ago, children born of service members were considered DUAL citizens of the US and the host nation.
THAT made them not ‘natural born’. You cannot be ‘natural born’ and also hold dual citizenship with another nation.
It was changed (I think sometime in the 80’s) to make children of service members full US citizens without the dual citizenship of the host nation.
People need to think about that. This is a relatively recent change.
How could someone be a dual citizen and a natural born citizen?
The fact is that nobody really knows the intended definition of ‘natural born’. But it sure as hell doesn’t include children who can be considered dual citizens of another nation. (Does the fact that this was changed change the status of these children? Perhaps.)
Do I think it’s fair that the children of our most dedicated citizens are exempt from the highest office due to a circumstance of their birth? Absolutely. But life is not fair. Until there is a WRITTEN definition of natural born citizen added to the Constitution, I think we’re all going to have to deal with murky situations.
John McCain WAS born on the base. It is the people who keep saying he wasn't that are keeping false rumors alive.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/john_mccains_birthplace.html
If you'll make that your entire campaign platform, I'll raise money for you by knocking on one door after another from the day you officially declare until the polls close in Hawaii on election night. I'll do the "Forest Gump runs across the country twice" thang if you'll put those thugs in prison where they belong. (You know, after we give them a speedy and fair trial and they are convicted for treason and fraud.)
Oh... I can also show that the other writer uses the term “high seas” multiple times in his chapter on Offences Against the Law of Nations, whereas Vattel NEVER uses that term in his book.
So we have an author who has a chapter entitled virtually identically to the Constitution.
He is quoted sixteen times more often by the Founding Fathers than Vattel. And he uses ALL of the words “piracy,” “felony,” and “high seas,” not one of which are ever used by Vattel in his book.
“Mccain.was not born on a base.”
LOL! Got it after the first ten or so corrections!
(wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.... wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong... I’m wrong... so wrong... I’m sorry... I’m wrong.)
;-)
Got bad information five years ago and didn’t know I was wrong until now.
No he wasn't. He was born on base. This is a false rumor spurred by the creation of a fake John McCain birth certificate which showed him to have been born in Colon Panama. That is a FAKE document.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/john_mccains_birthplace.html
That is correct.
And they never, EVER said that if she HADN'T been born to parents who were citizens, she would not have been a natural born citizen.
I disagree. As you keep proffering a demonstrably wrong interpretation, you have NOT read enough to give an authoritative opinion. You are just expressing the popular fallacy.
This is just another way of saying our system is broken. Well duh.
yep, and i dont think senate resolutions trump the Constitution.
Not at all. We believe the nation is full of idiots, and the current status quo, as well as your presence, supports this conclusion.
Here, read some George Will and learn something.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032603077.html
Well according even to the birthers, Chester A Arthur doesn’t fit your requirements.
Free Republic seems to have a lot of constitutional scholars who never studied constitutional law. Every Con Law Professor I’ve asked regarding this birther issue has found it to be completely preposterous.
Additionally, Mark Levin, one of the only national pundits who has a strong knowledge of the Constitution, also believes Cruz and Rubio are constitutionally eligible.
Correction. We have a lot. You just don't like it because it contradicts your own personal preference.
It all began when people started twisting the Constitution because they didn't like Obama. Unfortunately, that was tolerated.
You use the word "tolerated" as applied to freedom of speech and you have the nerve to tell *US* what is the meaning of Constitutional terms? You are a piece of work.
Well, actually you have not pointed to any case law. Even Scalia and Thomas, who are the strongest originalist on the Court, would disregard your definition of “natural born citizen.”
It’s fine. You guys dislike Obama so much, you think by raising this point with Cruz and Rubio, that you will somehow bring about the end of Obama’s Presidency. It’s not going to happen. Even if he was found to be ineligible, the Supreme Court would never make a ruling that would overturn 4 plus years of laws/regulations.
And what kind of conservative are you to think that the Supreme court is the Final word on anything? Do you support Abortion?
Tell me if you think the Supreme court ought to be the final word on that!
Jeff - just post the “writers” name. Why are you playing keep a way with the authors name?
So should we pick and chose what parts of our founding document to enforce based on which ones you like? Tell us please, the whole world is waiting with baited breath to hear of which parts you approve and disapprove.
To your point that dual citizenship is not legal in the U.S., however, the U.S. policy on dual citizenship stipulated in the State Department's Foreign Affairs manual indicates that dual citizenship is recognized (e.g. not illegal) but not encouraged.
7 FAM 081 SUMMARY(CT:CON-106; 06-06-2005)
e. U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality: While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person. A foreign country might claim you as a citizen of that country if (a) you were born there; (b) your parent or parents (and sometimes grandparents) are or were citizens of that country or (c) you are a naturalized U.S. citizen but are still considered a citizen under that country's laws. (The oath you take when you are naturalized as a U.S. citizen (8 CFR 337.1) doesn’t mean the foreign country does not still regard you as a citizen of that country.) Public inquiries about the citizenship laws of other countries should be directed to the embassy or consulate of that country in the United States. 8 U.S.C. 1185(b) (Section 215(b) INA) and 22 CFR 53.1 require that U.S. citizens exit and enter the United States on a U.S. passport, with certain limited exceptions (22 CFR 53.2).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.